\J V J Jk -/*^r> /Aa >0 ^ ' - 4J ^ 









w / 1 













^ 



.1 



-^^ 






^o 



t<. 



^' 



•IK 



^ 



^. 









► <^- 



'^. 



,v 



%^'^'^ 



^? 






-> ^Kj- 



^ 



V 



1 A ^ 



r\ 













:,^ 



^ 






vi. 



>, 



O N 






1^ - ■< * 



'""''» "^O 



r,/?'"' 



-:.^ G^ 



^^" 



C^ . 



1- X 




■^a 



^> '" 



^ 

'^V'9^" 



^:: 



\ 



\ 



COAT-OF-ARMS 

OF 

Colonel William Ball, 

OF 

VIRGINIA. 




ARMS: 



CREST 



Argent a lion passant sable ^ on a 
chief of the second three mullets of 
the first. 



Out of the clouds proper a demi- 
lion rampantt sable powdered with 
estoiles argent, holding a globe. 

MOTTO: "Coelum tueri.^^ To regard the 
heavens. 



One Line of the 



Ball Tribe. 



BY 



One of the Tribe. 



\£. 






Printed for Private Distribution. 



1902 



PRESS OF 

GIBB BROS. & MORAN, 

NEW YORK. 






0^ 






PREFi^CE. 



IT has been said, somewhere, that the pref- 
ace of a book is the most difficult part to 
compose. If such be the case, this preface 
will be as brief as the exigencies of the work 

will permit. 

The writer makes no claim to superior lit- 
erary merit, and if in the course of this work 
any inaccuracies, errors, or omissions occur, 
they are to be attributed rather to the con- 
fused state of the information and data at 
his command than to any neghgence, or in- 
attention, he hopes, on his part. 

He desires to express his sincere thanks to 
Miss Clara E. Ball (Associate Historian, In- 
ternational Ball Union), Miss Lulu K. Eubank 
(author of ^^Old Glory"), and Miss Emma S. 
Yerby (author of Manuscript History of 
''Colonel WiUiam Ball and his Descendants 
in Virginia "), for their uniform kindness and 
courtesy in offering suggestions and impart- 
ing information to him, during the prepara- 
tion of this little work. jj -p. j 

New York City, 

February 1, 1902. 



PART FIRST. 



PRELIMINARY REMARKS. 



TN one of his most famous orations, Daniel 
^ Webster asserted the proposition, that 
^^ Ancestral pride nourishes a weakness in 
posterity." Yet by right of descent (his father 
having been a Captain in the war of the 
American Revolution), he was entitled to 
membership in the '^ Order of the Cincinnati," 
based upon family pedigree, and one of the 
most exclusive orders then, as now, in the 
United States. Webster was a politician, as 
well as a standing candidate for the Presi- 
dency. 

John Fiske, the eminent historical and 
philosophical writer, as quoted by Rev. Geo. 
H. Ball, D.D., says : ''After the fashion that 
prevailed a hundred years ago, the most illus- 
trious of Americans felt little interest in his 
ancestry ; but with the keener historic and 

9 



broader scientific outlook of the present day, 
the importance of such matters is better ap- 
preciated. The pedigree of horses, dogs, and 
fancy pigeons, have a value that is quotable 
in terms of hard cash. Far more important 
for the student of human affairs, are the 
pedigrees of men. By no possible ingenuity 
of constitution making, or of legislation, can 
a society made up of ruffians and boors, be 
raised to the intellectual and moral level of a 
society made up of well bred merchants and 
yeomen, parsons, and lawyers. One might as 
well expect to see a dray horse in the Derby. 
It is, moreover, only when we habitually bear 
in mind the threads of individual relationship 
that connect one country with another that 
we get a really firm and concrete grasp of 
history. Without genealogy the study of 
history is comparatively lifeless." 

Thus we have the opposing views of two 
of the most eminent personages in their 
respective spheres, that this country has 
ever produced. One would think that the 
orator was a candidate for political ofiice 
and appealing to the ignorant prejudices of 
the mob, so common to the demagogue ; 

10 



whilst the philosopher was fervently assert- 
ing the pre-eminent superiority of ancestral 
lineage. 

There can be no doubt that of late years, 
there has been quite a revival, amounting to 
almost a ''craze," in genealogical research 
into family history, by everybody and any- 
body who have pretentions to family distinc- 
tion. One can scarcely pick up a newspaper 
that his attention is not immediately attracted 
to the headlines of the description of a anion 
or banquet of some family or other, never 
forgetting to describe with accuracy and pre- 
cision the ''illustrious ancestry;" that is, if 
there were any of sufficient importance to 
merit description. One can scarcely look the 
obituary columns over, but that his eyes are 
not attracted to the exploitation of the 
"distinguished progenitors" of the deceased. 

It may be news to many of the common 
people that we now have a College of Heraldry, 
in full working order, right here in New York 
city, as witness the following excerpt from 
one of our great dailies: "The experts in 
heraldry in England who have been tryirg to 

interest Americans in their ancestry and their 

11 



right to use a coat- of- arms have wearied of 
this long distance propaganda, and at least 
one of them has removed to this city to be on 
the spot and reap the harvest of the first 
enthusiasm he is hoping to arouse. 

^^So a new college of heraldry has come 
into existence here, and its special purpose is 
to trace the connection between American 
families and their ancestors in England, or on 
the Continent. The assurance is given that 
nearly every family in this country has the 
right to a coat- of -arms, and thus inferentially 
may establish its due connection with some 
family of England, or one of the Continental 
countries. 

^'This much is practically guaranteed by 
the latest of the heraldic establishments to 
attempt to awaken American enthusiasm in 
the subject. Its promises are deficient only 
in their failure to make it certain to the 
Americans interested in discovering their 
relationship to English families, that their 
new relatives will be just as glad to hear 
of it as they are. Maybe they will be, but 
there are as yet no colleges of heraldry in 
England that make a specialty of discover- 

12 




Benjamin Ball, 2nd 

1786-1858 



ing American relatives on behalf of the 
British families." 

Apropos of the above, some individual of 
what may be called in connection with this 
case, one of the proletarian class, wrote an 
indignant letter to the press denouncing our 
new College of Heraldry, as a '^fungus factory 
of shoddy lineage." He further suggested 
that ^^^our first families' desist from a too 
close scrutiny of their family history, lest 
they discover (perish the thought) th^ bar 
sinister boldly emblazoned on some of their 
ancestral escutcheons." 

Poor man ! Little did he reflect that one 
of the most deeply rooted and powerful 
factors in human nature, is self-conscious 
superiority. Might as well try to reverse 
the natural course of a Niagara ; might as 
well try to appease the raging billows of 
the ocean with a wave of the wand, as to 
try to convince the individual who claims 
representation in Burke^s Peerage, or the 
Almanache-de-Gotha, that he who is de- 
scended from a scavenger, or a hodcarrier, 
is as *^good" as himself. If he were a 
candidate for political office, he might admit 

15 



it in the presence of an audience, but not 
otherwise. Such is human nature. It has 
always been so, and will ever be so, as long 
as man lasts on this earth. 

It is a debatable questi<m that merits 
the serious consideration of the thoughtful, 
whether this craze, or fad, or whatever other 
name the reader may be pleased to term it, 
that has lately seized the mind of almost 
everybody who lays claim to family distinc- 
tion, is strictly in consonance with the 
institutions of the most intensely democratic 
government that the world ever saw, or not. 

We may be justified in asking ourselves 
the question, whether the diligent pursuit of 
genealogical study; the eager tracing of 
family lines to an illustrious ancestry ; the 
assumption of coats- of -arms in order to 
establish family esprit de corps, are strictly 
in harmony with the spirit and the insti- 
tutions of a government, the very corner- 
stone of which is based upon the theory of 
abstract equality. 

Who knows but that the '^ peerless leader," 
the great ^'commoner," the '^self-sacrificing 
patroit," appellations so near and dear to 

16 



the heart of the genuine demagogue, may 
not some time in the near future develop 
a national issue based upon this ancestral 
question, thereby endangering the ^^ stability 
of our institutions." 

It is no difficult matter to find ardent 
^^ champions of the people," ready to denounce 
any ^' effete institution of the old world " that 
threatens the social, as well as the political 
equality of the American sovereign born 
citizen. The "champion of the people" is 
every ready to throw off his coat, open his 
collar, and battle heroically for the rights of 
the ''plain people," particularly if his own 
political fortunes are at stake. He is ever 
ready to act the part of David (with his 
mouth), when the imaginary Gcliath appears. 
To use a homely, but forcible expression, 
''he's right there every time." 

Before closing the first part of this work, 
the writer respectfully submits that the 
views and sentiments contained therein, are 
of sufficient weight and importance to merit 
the serious consideration of the present as 
well as the future social and political phi- 
losophers of our country. 

17 



PART SECOND. 



ANCESTRY 1)F THE BALL TRIBE 

OF AMERICA. 



TT would, indeed, be a herculean undertaking 
to attempt to trace the many branches of 
the Ball family in England, so many and so 
varied are they. There are the Barkham 
Balls, the Oxfordshire Balls, the Wiltshire 
Balls, the Cheshire Balls, the Balls of Kent, 
the Balls of London, and aclinfinitum, 

Ireland furnishes her quota of the tribe in 
the following branches, to wit : The Balls 
of Youghal, the Balls of Fermanagh, the 
Balls of Armagh, the Balls of Ardee, the Balls 
of Shannon, and the Balls of St. Mary's 
Parish, Dublin. 

These Irish Balls are of English ancestry 
and undoubtedly migrated to Ireland during 
the first few centuries [ot the English ascend- 
ancy. They have always been conspicuous 
in the army and in the learned professions, 

31 



and are strict adherents to the Crown and 
the Estabhshed Church. 

Reverting to the different branches of the 
tribe in England, the first to claim attention 
is that branch known as the *'Barkham 
Balls," from the fact of their pretention to a 
great antiquity. They claim a direct and 
unbroken descent back to 1480. Some writers 
go a little further and assert with confidence 
that the tribe entered England during the 
Roman Conquest under Julius Caesar (56 
B. C). They fail to inform us whether the 
original Ball was a Roman, a Greek, a 
Spaniard, a Gaul, or what not, who may 
have been a camp follower of Caesars army. 
Possibly, he may have been a Barbarian 
belonging to one of the uncivihzed nations 
that Ca3sar conquered, previous to his in- 
vasion of Britain. It is a notable fact that 
Caesar makes no mention of a Ball in his 
famous "Commentaries." 

It is suggested that these learned and 
painstaking genealogical writers ought to 
have been satisfied to go back as far as 
William the Conqueror ; but no, they must 
"go William, at least a thousand better." 

32 



These ^^Barkham Balls" have been the 
cause of a great deal of confusion in the tribe 
in this country, particularly that branch of 
the tribe that located in Virginia. From all 
accounts, it would seem that one of the 
earliest Balls of Virginia visited England, 
a ad while there proceeded to look up and 
verify his family coat-of-arms and, to quote 
an authority, ^^by accident examined the 
book of visitations of Essex County, instead 
of that of Northampton County, and conse- 
quently copied data of the Barkham Balls, 
whose genealogy begins in 1480, etc., and 
discovering that the last name recorded of 
that family was one William Ball, who lived 
at Lincolns Inn, 1643, came to the conclu- 
sion that this William and the William 
who came to America about 1650 were 
one and the same person. The searcher 
neglected to find out whether or not the 
Arms of the William of Lincoln's Inn were 
the same as those used by his family. Had 
he remembered to make this important 
inquiry, many heated discussions might 
have been averted amongst the members 
of the present generations of Balls, as to 

23 



their right to claim data as early as 
1480." 

The Rev. Horace E. Hay den, an eminent 
authority, while collecting material some 
years ago for his Virginia Genealogies, 
** discovered two entirely different coats- of - 
arms, with the same genealogical account 
appended to each. After much research, he 
discovered that the different coats-of-arms 
represented respectively the Barkham Balls 
of Berkshire and the Balls of Northampton, 
England." Thus we are indebted to the skill 
and research of the Reverend gentleman 
in straightening out the doings of this 
^^ earliest" blundering Ball. 

As to the other branches of the tribe in 
England, little is dictinctly known of them, 
except as their names appear in Heraldry, 
or on the Rolls of the Universities of Ox- 
ford and Cambridge. 

The majority of those who entered the 
learned professions seem to have preferred 
theology, for we read of ^^Rev. John Ball of 
Oxfordshire, England, a Puritan of note, 
born in 1585." A great many of the New 
England tribe claim descent from this par- 

24 



son. We also read that a ^* Crest, out of 
the clouds, ppr., a demi-lion rampant, sable, 
powdered with etoiles argent, holding a 
globe, or," was added to the Arms of Eichard 
Ball, Doctor of Divinity, son to Lawrence 
Ball of Northampton, in 1613. Fuller, the 
great English divine, ex tolls the Rev. John 
Ball of Kent for his learning and piety. 
There are several other names of the tribe 
mentioned in connection with the Univer- 
sity of Oxford. 

The English Revolution of 1642, like all 
internecine wars, evidently caused a division, 
religious as well as political, in the various 
branches of the Ball family in England. 
Like the great war of Secession in our own 
country, not only were communities divided, 
but father against son and brother against 
brother faced each other in deadly combat 
in the opposing armies of King Charles 
and Cromwell. It is to this religio-political 
war that we may trace the causes that led 
to the emigration of the ancestors of the 
Balls of New England, as well as those of 
Virginia. 

In order to explain to the reader more 

25 



thoroughly, who may be unacquainted with 
EngUsh History, the causes that led to the 
English Revolution, the writer deems it 
necessary to digress a little from the sub- 
ject matter. 

From the time of the reformation and 
the overthrow of the Papacy by Henry the 
VIII, there had grown up a number of 
religious sects, the results more or less of 
individual interpretation of the Scriptures, 
chief among whom were the Puritans. 

Hume, the great English historian, divides 
the Puritans into three classes, which were 
as follows : the Pohtical Puritans, the Puri- 
tans in Church Discipline, and the Doctrinal 
Puritans. 

The first may be classed as religio-political 

demagogues, ever ready to take an advantage 

that would advance their political fortunes. 

The second were learned theologians, known 

to fame as the authors of the Westminster 

Confession, the fundamental creed of modern 

Presbyterianism. The third were speculative, 

rather than literal in their interpretation of 

the Scriptures. They were all followers of 

Calvin, rather than of Luther. They asserted 

36 




Louis Ball 
1«15-18U5 



the doctrine of predestination, free will, 
grace, etc., etc., as expounded by Calvin in 
his '* Institutes of Christianity," with a 
narrow-minded fanaticism that has seldom, 
if ever, been equalled. 

They were violently opposed to Episcopacy, 
the prerogatives of which were asserted with 
equal pertinacity by William Laud, the 
famous Archbishop of Canterbury and Pri- 
mate of all England. 

On the other hand, it should be remembered 
that the Church of Eome had ceased to exist 
as a visible institution in England, having 
been supplanted by the ^'Established Church," 
yet many of the rites, ceremonies, and, for 
all practical purposes, the church government 
with the exception of Papal supremacy) of 
the ^ormer were retained by the latter. To 
the casual observer, there were but little 
difference in the two institutions, with the 
exceptions, that the mass, the confessional, 
and the sacrament of the eucharist (tran- 
substantiation), were eliminated from the 
Established Church. 

Now, if there was any one thing on this 
earth that the Puritans detested more than 

29 



another, it was prelacy. They never could 
endure spiritual supremacy in the form of 
a prelacy. 

However contradictory it may seem, yet 
it is a fact that, while claiming to be Chris- 
tians, with all their fanatical zeal, they were 
followers of the Prophets, rather than of 
the Apostles. The whole superstructure of 
their theology was based rather upon the 
old than the new dispensation. In the 
aggressive propagation of their faith ; in 
their peculiar oral expressions ; in the cant 
Scriptural phrases they fairly reveled in, 
they assumed an aspect that drew down 
upon them not only the contempt, but the 
hatred of the churchmen. The churchmen 
looked upon the Puritans as traitors to both 
God and man ; the Puritans looked upon 
the churchmen as followers of Antichrist. 

The acts more than anything else that 
led to the Revolution were what is known 
in English history as the acts and proceed- 
ings of the Star Chamber Council, presided 
over and dominated by Laud. By the acts 
of this council the Puritans, as well as other 
dissentients, were compelled to conform to 

30 



the Established Church, or suffer '* certain 
pains and penalties." We can imagine what 
these pains and penalties were in an age of 
intense religious hatred and persecution. It 
should be added, that the last straw that 
broke the camel's back was Charles' des- 
potic attempt to rule without a Parliament. 

It was from 1620 to 1642, that the majority 
of the Puritans, the ancestors of the Balls 
of New England, among others, emigrated 
to New England to escape persecution 'for 
conscience sake," as they were pleased to 
term it. 

It would seem that when once they estab- 
lished their theocracy in New England, this 
cant phrase ^^ conscience- sake," had quite a 
different meaning to what it had in England. 
While they were willing to enjoy all that it 
implied, they were not quite willing to ex- 
tend its beneficence to those who were not 
of the ^^ elect." Woe betide the Catholic, 
the Quaker, or any one else of the '^ungodly" 
who might be detected in the henious crime 
of asserting his liberty of conscience ! He 
would be made to feel very quickly the 
gentle influence of the pillory or the whip- 

31 



ping post. Witness the cruel persecution 
and banishment of Roger Williams and his 
harmless but devoted band of Quakers. Of 
all species of tyranny, a religious tyranny 
is the most odious. 

To use plain language, the liberty of con- 
science of the New England Puritan was a 
misnomer, a fraud, a deceit, and a hypo- 
criti al pretense. 

W^e may remark, that the sumptuary leg- 
islation of many of our States to this dav 
can be traced to the influence of the New 
England theocracy of the seventeenth cen- 
tury. 

It was from 1649, the date of the fall of 
the monarchy, to 1660, the date of its restor- 
ation, that the principal emigration of the 
Cavaliers (adherents of the Crown and the 
EstabHshed Church) took place. It was dur- 
ing this period that Colonel William Ball 
of Millenbeck, the progenitor of the Balls 
of Virginia, came to America. 

The reader will observe, that the earliest 
Balls to emigrate to America settled in 
New England, as the result of their perse- 
cution in England. He will also observe 

32 



that, after the overthrow of the monarchy 
and the establishment of the commonwealth, 
many Cavaliers emigrated to Virginia, the 
result of the persecution by Cromwell. This 
leads us to the conclusion that, while the 
Ball tribe in America are of one ancestral 
origin in England, yet they championed 
conflicting religious and political views, 
thereby dividing into hostile camps in the 
internecine wars of the seventeenth century. 
This view is strengthened by the fact that 
the earlier Balls of New England were Puri- 
tans, whilst those of Virginia were Cavaliers. 
As a further proof of this view, it- may be 
observed that the only difference of the coat- 
of-arms of the Balls of New England and 
that of the Balls of Virginia is, that the 
former is surmounted with a ^^stag trippant 
ppr," whilst that of the latter is surmounted 
with a "demi-lion rampant." 

There is no doubt that the various branches 
jf the Ball family in England were ^'people 
of parts," to use a familiar phrase in vogue 
in those days. They belonged to the great 
middle class, that has been — as it is to-day — 
the brains, the life and the glory of England 

33 



for the last five hundred years. It is from 
this class that she has drawn her poets, 
her philosophers, her statesmen and her 
heroes. It is to this class more than to any- 
other, that she owes her pre-eminence among 
the nations of the earth. 



i 



34 



PART THIRD. 



COLONEL AVILLIAM BALL, AND HIS 
DESCENDANTS, IN VIRGINIA. 



A S stated in part second of this work, the 
"^^ cause of Colonel Ball's emigration to 
Virginia was the downfall of the English 
monarchy and the execution of King 
Charles, though the alluring prospects of a 
new country might have influenced him to 
a certain extent. We are justified in the 
assumption that the English Revolution had 
more to do than any thing else with his 
departure from England, from the fact 
that he was undoubtedly a Eoyalist and a 
Churchman. That he was a churchman and 
a zealous supporter of the Church of Eng- 
land in Virginia (to quote an authority) — • 
* * is shown by the fact that he was a mem- 
ber of the committee appointed to arrange 
for ;the support and government of the 

37 



Church in Virginia, and we find that but a 
short time elapsed after coming to Virginia,, 
before he was made Warden of Christ 
Church in Lancaster County, in company 
with his friend and neighbor, John Wash- 
ington." 

There is very Kttle of a definite character 
known of Colonel Ball's English ancestry, 
or even of the exact place of his birth. 
One excellent authority suggests the ^'prob- 
ability" that he was born in America, andi 
went to England for his wife ; but it is i 
only a probabihty, and has no foundation 
in fact. Another authority states that he 
was a younger brother of the noted John 
Ball, of Kent. Still another asserts that 
he reluctantly served in the Eoyal Army, 
and was in the battles of Marston Moore, 
and Naseby, and that his estate, which 
was considerable, was much injured when 
General Fairfax quelled an insurrection in 
Kent. 

It is the general opinion of the majority 
of the authorities that he was born in 
Northampton, England. This opinion has 
a very strong foundation based upon the 

38 



fact that his coat- of -arms are the same as 
those of the Balls of Northampton. 

It is to be regretted that so little is known 
of Colonel Ball and his immediate descend- 
ants in Virginia, as his granddaughter — 
*Hhe lowland beauty" — Mary Ball Washing- 
ton, was the mother of the ^'Father of his 
Country." 

Had the earlier biographers of Washington 
devoted a fraction of the skill and industry 
to the research of his maternal as they did 
to his paternal ancestors, we would have a 
more intimate acquaintance with the true 
source of the elements which gave him 
fame. The very majesty of the name Wash- 
ington, coupled with the unwritten law of 
primogeniture, giving precedence to the male 
over the female line, seems to have so 
dazzled them, that they lost sight of his 
true qualities in an effort to rear a demi- 
god. 

One English admirer goes so far as to 
assert that the Washington s were directly 
descended from a King (one of the Edwards) 
of England, as if that would enhance his 
greatness. 

39 



The whole truth of the matter is. the 
EngHsh ancestry of the Washingtons is as 
little, if not less, known than that of the 
Balls ; nor did they play any conspicuous 
part in the colonial history of Virginia, 
except that one or two of them were dele- 
gates to the House of Burgesses. They 
were simply "gentlemen planters" — that 
was all. 

The erroneous ideas that formerly pre- 
vailed relative to Washington are to be 
attributed to Jared Sparks, more than to 
any one else of the earlier writers. Like 
his contemporary, John S. C. Abbott, he 
was a clergyman, and seems to have thought 
that the true mission of the historian was 
to develop "moral ideals," however at 
variance with the facts they may be. 

He not only rewrote the writings of 
Washington, and "dressed them up," as it 
were [it is a well-known fact that Wash- 
ington possessed but a limited education], 
but almost succeeded in making him scale 
the dizzy heights of sanctity. 

The stories of the hatchet and the cherry 
tree ; the silent prayers and pious vigils — 

40 



all of which are very nice reading for very 
nice little boys and girls — originated with 
Sparks, in his pamphlets, in reply to Lord 
Mahon. While these pious fictions are ex- 
tremely edifying, the fact that they are not 
true history should not be lost sight of. 

The truth of the matter is, Washington 
was a product of his environment, and, like 
all great men, possessed a whole lot of virile 
human nature, as witness his explosion 
when Lee blundered so lamentably at the 
Battle of Monmouth. If we are to believe 
eye witnesses to that famous scene, the 
very atmosphere was blue from vigorous, 
old fashioned profanity uttered by him on 
that occasion. 

If we can believe Adams, Jefferson, Madi- 
son (very good witnesses), and others, he 
could, when ''out of sorts," use language 
not usually heard in well-regulated Sunday 
Schools. 

That he was a churchman, is quite true ; 
that he was a saint, is not true. That he 
was a very great man, no one of intelligence 
for a moment will deny. That he possessed 
his defects probably fewer than any other 

41 



hero of modern times, there is ample proof, 
the hero worshippers to the contrary not- 
withstanding. 

The most distinguishing features of his 
character, were his well-balanced mind, his 
admirable judgment, his persistency under 
adverse conditions, his patience, his fortitude, 
and above all, his incorruptible patriotism. 

To return to the subject of Colonel Ball, 
and his descendants it may be stated that 
he, Richard Lee, John Carter, Isaac AUer- 
ton, and John and Lawrence Washington, 
founders of some of the first families ('' F. F. 
V's ") of Virginia, came to Virginia in 1650. 

Colonel Ball settled in Lancaster County, 
on the Corotoman River, a branch of the 
Rappahannock, and called his home ''Mil- 
lenbeck. " 

''That Colonel WilHam Ball was a man 
of consequence is shown by the prominent 
position he soon occupied in his adopted 
country, and the fact that he brought with 
him a handsome copy, on parchment, of 
the coat- of -arms granted his ancestors, the 
Balls of Northamptonshire, Cheshire and 
Kent, in 1613," says an authority. That he 

42 




Julia A. (Ball) Jacoby 



was a conspicuous person of note is further 
attested by the fact that he was Presiding 
Magistrate and Colonel Commandant of 
the county ; John Carter being Lieutenant- 
Colonel. 

Before coming to Virginia, Colonel William 
Ball married Hannah Atherall, of Burgh, 
Suffolk, England, by whom he had four 
children : Richard, William, Joseph and 
Hannah. Richard, the eldest son, died in 
infancy. 

Captain William (2) Ball, second son of 
Colonel William Ball, married Margaret 
Downman, daughter of Raleigh Downman, 
of '^ Morattico," in Lancaster County, and 
in his time became Master of '^Millenbeck.'' 
Margaret Downman was his second wife. 
He first married Miss Harris, of "Bay 
View," in Northumberland County. There 
were no children by the first marriage ; 
there were nine by the second wife. 

First — William (3) Ball, who married in 
1744 Hannah Beale, by whom he had six 
children : William, George, Sarah, Judith, 
Ellen and Hannah. 

45 



Second — Captain Richard Ball married 
Miss Young of Northumberland County and 
settled in Lancaster County. There were 
four children by this marriage : Sarah, Mar- 
garet, Hannah and Esther. 

Third — Major James Ball, of ''Bewdly," 
married (1) Eliza Howson, (2) Mary (Conway) 
Dangerfield, (3) Mary Anne (Bertrand) Bal- 
lendine. By his first wife James had three 
children : Anne, Elizabeth and Eliza. There 
were no children by the third marriage, 
but his second wife had ten : Mary, Frances, 
Eve, Jesse, James, Edwin, Jeduthum, Mary, 
Sinah and Sarah. 

i^oi^r^^— Captain Joseph Ball married Miss 
Spencer and settled in Northumberland 
County. He had five children : Spencer, 
Eichard, Sarah, Joseph and William. 

Fifth — Captain George Ball married (1) 
Miss Haynie, (2) Grace Waddy. He also 
settled in Northumberland County. He had 
no children by his first wife, but his second 
wife had eight : John, David, Captain 
George, Jr., Joseph, Richard, Sarah, Harris 

46 



Downman and Grace. Captain George 
and Captain Joseph Ball were the heads 
of the Northumberland branch of the Ball 
family. 

Sixth — Samuel, of whom we will discuss 
more extendedly in Part Four, as he is 
the head of that branch of the Ball 
family that it is intended this work shall 
exploit. 

Seventh — David, twin brother of Stretch- 
ley, born September 14, 1686, died Decem- 
ber 24, 1732, unmarried. 

Eighth — Stretchley, twin brother of David, 
died in infancy. 

Ninth — Margaret, only daughter and last 

child of Captain William Ball, ^^Gent," 

married Raleigh Downman, son of Raleigh 

and Travers Downman, of Lancaster 

County. There were five children from this 

marriage, two of whom married cousins 

Ball — William married Ellen Ball, and Raleigh 

married Frances Ball ; Christopher, Charles 

and Elisha. 

. 47 






Colonel Joseph Ball, of ''Epping Forest," 
third child of Colonel William Ball, and 
grandfather of George Washington, married 
first a Miss Romney, an English woman, 
by whom he had one son, Joseph (2) Ball, 
of Epping Forest, and four daughters, 
Esther, Hannah, Anne, and Elizabeth. 

Esther married Raleigh Chinn, Hannah 
married Raleigh Travers, Anne married Ed 
win Conway, and Elizabeth married Joseph 
Carnegie. Anne (Ball) Conway is the an- 
cestress of President Madison. Joseph (2 
Ball married, in England, Frances Ravens- 
croft, by whom he had several children, all 
of whom died in infancy except one daugh- 
ter, Frances, who married Raleigh Down- 
man, of ^^Morattico," of Lancaster County. 
Hence the male line of Joseph (1) Ball, of 
Epping Forest became extinct with his son 
Joseph (2) Ball. 

Joseph (1) Ball married, the second time, 
Mrs. Johnston, nee Montague, by whom he 
had one child, Mary, who married Augustine 
Washington, of ^'Wakefield," in Westmore- 
land County, Virginia. From this marriage 
there were six children, as follows : 

48 



First — George; the illustrious ^^ pater pa- 
tricBy'" who married Martha (Dandridge 
Parke) Custis. 

Second — Betty; who married Colonel Field- 
ing Lewis. 

Third — Samuel ; married (1) Jane Champ, 
(2) Mildred Thornton, (3) Lucy Chapman. 

Fourth — Augustine ; married Hannah Bush- 
rod. 

Fifth — Charles ; married Mildred Thornton. 
Sixth — Mildred ; died young. 

The fourth and last child of Colonel 
William Ball of Millenbeck, Hannah, mar- 
ried David Fox. There were several chil- 
dren by this marriage. Her eldest daughter, 
Elizabeth, married Judutham Ball, son of 
Major James Ball, of Bewdly, from which 
marriage the Burgess Ball line has sprung. 

It may not be inappropriate to state that 
the Balls of Colonial Virginia were people 
of consequence, as reckoned in those days, 
and may be classed as belonging to the 

49 



'^ first families of Virginia." They were 
closely connected, by marriage and other- 
wise, with the Washingtons, Lees, Carters, 
Downmans, Spencers, Burgesses, and other 
famous families of Virginia. Robert E. Lee, 
the great Confederate Commander, was ma- 
ternally descended from the Balls of Epping 
Forest. 

By way of explanation, it should be stated 
that the Balls followed the Enghsh custom 
of the '^ upper classes" of conferring names 
on their places of family residence. Thus 
we have Millenbeck, Bewdly, Epping For- 
est, Ditchly, Coan, and Crestfield, founded 
by younger sons, from whence the different 
lines of the Balls derive their respective 
names. 

These names generally represented some 
great plantation ^^ stocked" with a goodly 
number of ^^ niggers" and all the appur- 
tenances that in those days were deemed 
necessary to make a real gentleman com- 
fortable and happy. 

. From close scrutiny, it would seem that 
the Balls were addicted to the reprehensible 
habit of intermarriage with cousins — caused, 

50 



it is presumed, by a dearth in outside mar- 
riageable material not up to the proper 
standard . 

Another noticeable feature of theirs was 
the conferring of names of deceased children 
on younger children of the same family. 



51 



PART FOURTH. 



SAMUEL BALL, OF CULPEPER, AND 
HIS DESCENDANTS. 



TN the commencement of the fourth and 
last part of this work, the writer deems it 
necessary to place Samuel Ball, of Culpeper, 
Virginia, as the progenitor of that numerous 
tribe, both male and female, who are in- 
habitants of the Western and Southwestern 
states. 

It would seem that Samuel, like many of 
his descendants '* struck out for himself" 
early in life, and located at Culpeper, Vir- 
ginia. He is the first of the earlier Balls 
to migrate any considerable distance from 
the ancestral home, "Millenbeck." A refer- 
ence to the map of Virginia, will show 
that Culpeper County is quite a distance 
from Lancaster County. 

Of the personality and character of Sam- 

55 



uel Ball, very little is known except what 
has been gleaned from tombstones, church 
records, and other musty sources of infor- 
mation. 

In the records and correspondence of the 
earlier Balls, very little is mentioned of him, 
on account, it is assumed, of his isolation 
from the rest of the family; Culpeper be- 
ing, as stated before, quite a distance from 
Millenbeck. 

According to the record, Samuel Ball, like 
his ancestors, was a strict adherent to the 
Crown and the Established Church. We 
read that he was *'one of the first vestry 
of ht. Marks Parish, Culpeper County, Jan- 
uary 1, 1731. In 1751, James Pendleton 
was elected vestryman in place of Samuel 
Ball, deceased." We further read that 
William Ball (son of Samuel) and Henry 
Field, Jr., '^having in the court of Culpeper 
County, taken the oath to his Majesty and 
subscribed the test, and in the vestry sub- 
scribed to be conformable to the doctrine 
a,nd discipline of the Church of England, 
as by law established, took their places as 
vestrymen accordingly." 

56 



These two were made church wardens 
the ensuing year, and William Ball for 
the year of 1Y76. He was also vestryman 
in 1785. 

The authorities state that Samuel Ball 
was the sixth child of Captain William 
Ball, of Millenbeck, and was born there in 
1686, and married Anne Tayloe in 1717, 
and moved to Culpeper after his marriage 
and died there in 1751. 

By his marriage to Anne Tayloe, there 
were issue as follows : 

First — William. There is no further rec- 
ord of William. 

Second — Thomas ; married Mildred Down- 
man, and by her had Anne, who married 
Thomas Danneran, and by him had Mary- 
Washington, who married Major William 
Carmack. 

Third — Benjamin (1); married Ann Macin- 
tosh, a lady of Scottish extraction and by 
her had nine children. 

Fourth— Fdiiij. No further record of Patty. 

57 



The nine children of Benjamin (1) Ball 
were as follows : 

i^Vs^— Millie ; married a Mr. Cooley. No 
further record of Millie. 

Second— Hannah ; married John Morning. 
No further record of Hannah. 

Third — Margaret ; married Robert Good. 
No further record of Margaret. 

Fourth — William ; married a Miss Singleton. 
No further record of William. 

Fifth— horns ; married Lucy Singleton. No 
further record of Louis. 

Sixth — Rubin; married Mary Harden. No 
further record of Rubin. 

Seventh — James ; married, but wife un- 
known to the writer. No further record of 
James. 

All the above children were born in 
Virginia. 

58 




Henry F. Jacoby 



Eighth — Benjamin (2); married (1) Margaret 
Mourning, (2) Clairisa Dimmick. Benjamin 
and his descendants will receive special 
attention further on. 

Ninth — Allen ; married three times. Who 
the names of the fortunate ladies were, the 
deponent saieth not. 

Benjamin (2) and Allen were born in 
Kentucky. 

Benjamin Ball (1) and family, in company 
with Daniel Boone — famous in American 
history and romance — emigrated to the 
''dark and bloody ground," and located 
near Boonsborough, Ky, in 1780. To re- 
cite the hardships, trials, and tribulations of 
the "founders of the State of Kentucky," 
would fill a separate volume. They encoun- 
tered all the dangers and perils incident to 
the invasion and occupation of a wild 
country dominated by the merciless savage 
Indian. To use the picturesque language of 
Felix Grundy, ''death was in almost every 
bush, and every thicket concealed an am- 
buscade." 

There is a family tradition that Benjamin 

61 



Ball (1) was a man of note in his day, and 
that he established the first mill in the 
Territory of Kentucky. The tradition insists 
that it was a saw, grist, and paper mill ; a 
sort of combination establishment. 

Benjamin Ball (2) was born May 17, 1786, 
near Boonsborough, Ky., and died in 1858, in 
Missouri. He married (1) Margaret Mourn- 
ing, of Boonsborough, Ky. The issue of this 
union were as follows : 

First — Nelson ; born 1807 ; married Mary 
Huff am, of Henry County, Ind., in 1827. 
There were born to this union eight chil- 
dren ; all deceased but two, Mrs. Adeline 
Stivers and Mrs. Sarah Hoffer. 

Second — Isaac ; born 1809 ; married Jane 
Gould, of Edwardsville, 111. Six children 
were born to this union, five of whom are 
living. One, Mrs. Linda Henckell, is known 
to the writer only. 

Third — James ; born 1811 ; married Nancy 
Wise, of Carrington, Ky., in 1846. There 
were born to this union two children; both 
deceased. 

62 



Fourth— Flemon ; born 1813 ; married Nancy 
Carroll, of Mississippi, in 1838. There were 
born to this union four children ; all deceased 
but one, Mrs. Allen. 

Fifth — Louis ; born 1815 ; married Jane 
Griggsby, of Blandensville, Ills., in 1853. 
There were born to this union four children, 
two deceased and two living, Mrs. Jennie 
Livingston and Mrs. Hester Buose. 

All the above children of Benjamin Ball 
(2) were 'born in Kentucky. His wife 
Margaret, having died, he removed to Henry 
County, Ind., in 1823, and there married 
Clairisa Dimmick, a native of Connecticut, 
in 1828. The issue of this union were as 
follows : 

First— Julia, A. Ball ; born October 13, 1828, 
in Henry County, Ind.; married Samuel R. 
Jacoby, of Pennsylvania-Dutch and Virginia 
extraction, at Bloomington, Ills., November 
26, 1846. There were born to this union 
seven children, as follows : 

(1.) Adolphus D. Jacoby; born 1847; 
died 1848. 

63 



(2.) Henry F. Jacoby ; born April 9, 
1850, at Bloomington, Ills.; married Caro- 
line U. Brice, November 5, 1881, at New 
York City. There was born to this union, 
one child, Henrietta F., born November 
19, 1882. 

(3.) Peter C. Jacoby; born at Blooming- 
ton, Ills., October 1^, 1851 ; married Bertha 
Sernam, at Alva, 0. T., in 1895. The issue 
of this union is as follows: Richard M., and 
Samuel R. 

(1.) Orren B. Jacoby ; born January 4, 
1857, at Bloomington, Ills.; married Mariah 
Lentz (deceased), March 2, 1889, in Colorado. 
There was born to this union, one child, 
Samuel R.; died July 23, 1901, at Cripple 
Creek, Col., age 11 years. 

(5. ) Abraham L. Jacoby ; born February 
5, 1861, at Mount Ayr, Iowa ; married 
Mary L. Denhart, at Lincoln, Neb., March 
18, 1888. There are issue of this union six 
children, as follows : Elmer, born in 1892, 
at Lincoln, Neb.; Nettie, born January 12, 
1895, at Mount Ayr, Iowa; Edith M., born 
September 26, 1897, at Mount Ayr, Iowa ; 
Dail D., born July 20, 1899, at Mount Ayr, 

64 



Iowa; Samuel R, born November 29, 1900, 
at Knowlton, Iowa, died in infancy. 

(6.) Iretus W. Jacoby; born September 9, 
1868, at Mount Ayr, Iowa ; married Jennie 
Dimmick, May 1, 1890, at Lincoln, Neb. 
There are issue of this union four children, 
as follows : Harley N., born January 9, 1891, 
in Colorado; Henry F., born October 14, 
1896, at Lincoln, Neb.; Julia L., born Feb- 
ruary 4, 1899, at Lincoln, Neb.; Nelhe M., 
born June 18, 1900, at Lincoln, Neb. 

(7.) Edith M. Jacoby; born July 10, 1870, 
at Lincoln, Neb.; died October 13, 1870. 

Second — Angeline Ball ; born October 23, 
1829, in Henry County, Ind. ; married James 
Albury, July 10, 1850, at Bloomington, Ills. 
Both deceased. 

Third — Lyvia Ball, born January 13, 1831, 
in Henry County, Ind. ; married Henry 
Broadwater, August 15, 1850, at Blooming- 
ton, Ills. There were born to this union 
nine children, six of whom are dead. The 
three living are as follows : 

(1.) Isaac ; born 1856, at Mount Ayr, 
Iowa. 

65 



(2.) Albert P.; born 1859, at Mount Ayr, 
Iowa. 

(3.) Milton 0.; born at Bloomington, Ills.; 

date of birth unknown to the writer. 

Fourth— l^lYiTSi Ball; born June 23, 1832, 
in Henry County, Ind. ; died in 1866, at 
Le Roy, Ills. 

Fifth— Benjaimm F. Ball ; born March 23, 
1834, in Henry County, Ind.; married Louisa 
Thurber, at Mount Ayr, Iowa, in 185Y ; died 
at Mount Ayr, Iowa, in 1857. 

Sixth — Orren Ball ; born September 10, 
1837, in Henry County, Ind.; died 1856, at 
Bloomington, Ills. 

Thus ends one line of the great Ball tribe, 
and the writer feels that, considering the 
adverse circumstances under which he has 
worked, he has rendered the subject the 
best treatment at his disposal. 

The Balls, both in the male, as well as in 
the female line, are very numerous all over 
the United States, and it is suggested, that 
if fecundity adds distinction to a name, 
then the name Ball is certainly in the race 

66 



4> 



«D 



«5 



with Brown, Jones, Smith, Robinson, et al. 
and deserves a niche in the Temple of Fame. 
In order to simplify matters, the writer 
deems it necessary to recapitulate the line 
of descent of those for whom this was 
written. It is as follows: 

Colonel William Ball, of Millenbeck. 
Captain William Ball, of Millenbeck. 
Samuel Ball, of Culpeper. 
Benjamin Ball (1), of Boonsborough. 
Benjamin Ball (2), of Boonsborough. 

References : 

Chambers' Encyclopedia. 

Life of Washington, by Norman Hapgood. 

History of England, by Lord Macauley. 

Life of Oliver Cromwell, by Theodore 
Roosevelt. 

Virginia Genealogies, by Rev. Horace E. 
Hayden. 

Colonel William Ball, and his Decendants, 
by Miss Emma S. Yerby. 

*^ Our Journal," published by International 
Ball Union. 



67 



^oo^ 








^° ^"^^ '^^ 












"^'e'^^^.* ^ 




o » t. 



•^oo^ 



' V 4-. 










^00^ 







.<^' 



*^* v"©- </ ^ 






o'^ . 




o 



> 



- ^-^^^/ ^^^ ^-. ^^ 



o • i 



'^ 0* 



•/ 
,*''.' 

















V ' o 



o 
o 



-7^ 



.<^ 



%. ''.~^oV^«^ 






V 






y • o. 



^.. 



' A^ 



.V 



-^Jj^ 



^, 



* 






A 



^ 



V 



\' 



> 



S 



0' 










o 



rO 



° " ° ^ <^^ 



-l^xA- 









J.OO^ 



o , , 






.0' 



<^. 






O N O 



^^ 



V 



0"' 



d^. 



o V/' 












L ' S 



.0 



,^ 



" o ^ o* 



,v 



OOBBS BROS. 

LIBRARV BINDING 

APR 81 

ST. AUGUSTINE 
FLA. 

32084 ; 



» «:■ 



■■'7^ 



^ O' 










o 



<- 






IBRARY OF CONOR 



ESS 



021 549 314 3 






|- -^ ti m m u %i m ir w k M' W 



